You've all seen that slogan, “Make America Great Again”. But have we ever really asked ourselves what really made America great? There have been countries that have risen to great power and then ultimately faded as others have risen to take their place. Will that be America's fate as well?
Yesterday was the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I was watching the remembrance ceremony at the memorial and was so saddened that the America that responded back then seems to have disappeared. We have always been more diverse than people may realize, whether it be in religion, race or ancestry. Yet, despite our differences, when we faced seemingly insurmountable odds we pulled together and supported each other. That's what we saw on 9/11 and in its aftermath.
There were people who responded to help without question.
And people in our government knew what to do.
In times of trouble we have stood side by side, united in common cause. That is what made our country great.
209 comments:
1 – 200 of 209 Newer› Newest»"Yet, despite our differences, when we faced seemingly
insurmountable odds we pulled together…"
Oddly enough, I seem to remember Petes making much the same lament several months ago, although I forget now just which Trump initiative or policy he was wanting America to support.
That's the thing, isn't it? We all believe that it is the opposing side that should "support" our beliefs.
It reminds me of this commercial CNN played during the conventions.
We need to work together
And this one Petes may appreciate.
What we don't seem to realize is that, with some exceptions, most people in the United States want the same thing. That is a safe place to raise their families, jobs to provide food and shelter, and a chance to live their lives. It is the way to get there that we have difficulty with.
An external attack like we saw on 9/11 is easy to comprehend. Unless, of course, you are a conspiracy nut. An internal attack is not. And that is what we are now seeing by Donald Trump. It is not just a disagreement about methods to achieve our goals.
In this case we are being called upon to understand what democracy really means. It is not the rule or will of one man, but of all of us. It is democracy that needs our support.
And it is Donald Trump who is the danger, not Joe Biden.
I'm fully up to speed on the clear and present danger Trump presents to the American Experiment. But I'm not sure what danger Petes sees in Biden. Petes has always been a little vague on the parameters of that supposed danger ("imaginary" danger?)
Off topic a little bit…. The NewYorkTimes has new polling out which indicates that Trump's modest mid-summer improvement in standing in Minnesota has petered out entirely.
It is the northern areas, such as the Iron Range, and more rural areas that support Trump. The larger population centers such as the Twin Cities support Biden. What has disappointed me is that farmers still seem to be supporting Trump. After his trade war with China I thought they would be less enamored of Trump.
The article seems to think a 9 point lead by Biden is a lot compared to what Hillary ended up with. But, personally, I think it should be wider.
I talked to someone today who is concerned with the civil unrest and still leans toward Trump because of that, I think. But we did agree that we should still be able to discuss issues in a rational manner and he too wishes we could be more unified. I told him I felt that things would be different if we had better leadership in Washington.
I doubt that anything I said will impact his vote, but at least we could talk without anger.
"After his trade war with China I thought they would be less
enamored of Trump."
Culture war against America trumps trade war against China.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The polling that followed the BLM protests seems to indicate that the violence that accompanied some of those protests moved almost no votes at all in either direction. However they did offer the Trump supporters a plausible public justification for supporting Trump. So, they were beneficial to Trump to that limited extent.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Trump has quietly returned to doing large audience stagings of the Traveling Trump Road Show.
It's early enough that attributable viral outbreaks can be expected to occur before the presidential debates are over. Be interesting to see if any of the moderators have the balls to go there.
NewYorkMag ("Intelligencer") has a critique of our police violence problem which argues that neither party actually has a solution to the problem as of yet. Still work to be done on devising a workable solution.
I think the author's proposed solutions would be a little radical for my tastes, but I do tend to agree with his analysis to the point that neither political party has worked out a viable solution yet.
The polling that followed the BLM protests...
I have now run into basically two people who do not support BLM. One has stated that he feels they are racist.
They both seem to feel that police tactics are justified if the person stopped is reaching for something that is out of sight. As in a possible weapon.
The second one is under the belief that the Democrats support the riots and also want to take away people's guns. He calls himself a Libertarian.
"…if the person stopped is reaching…"
Too many cops already think that's all the excuse they need; too many prosecutors already think it should be.
UCLA study suggests that the coronavirus may have been in Los Angeles in December.
Los Angeles is obviously not Minnesota, but still, it's some support for Lynnette's theory that it's been around longer than people know.
It's semi-official now, although Trump's not yet made it fully official by tweeting it out. He's nonetheless let it out that he's given up on controlling the coronavirus epidemic and is intending to allow it to work its way through the population, unimpeded, until there are enough dead people accumulated for the country to develop a "herd mentality".
(This news hasn't hit FoxNews as of yet. That might take some time or even a Trumptweet on the subject. Right now they're running with the story that the coronavirus might have been "intentionally released" by the Chinese.)
UCLA study suggests that the coronavirus may have been in Los Angeles in December.
Yeah, I saw that earlier. Some are arguing against it, but I still believe it was here earlier as this study suggests.
It also still has a ways to run before we get herd (lol, mentality)...er immunity. I heard that Trump's question and answer period didn't go well with those undecided voters.
Corona is just like the flu but w a little bit higher mortality since we have no vaccine yet.
We did a very limited lockdown in Sweden. And apart from a few months last spring myself and everyone I know have gone about their daily lives more or less as usual. Sure, there have been changes, such as we all know Corona might be fatal to the sick or elderly so we stay clear of them or meet with a distance in mind. Also large public gatherings are still a no no.
Other than that, not very many restrictions. I took a full public bus just yesterday to go to a friend for some beer, card playing and a bbq. This afternoon I went and had a pasta dish and a beer at an outdoor seating in a restaurant. People everywhere, milling about, and no one with a ridiculous face mask.
And as of a few weeks back Sweden has a lower infection rate than our neghboring countries. Who did pretty hard lockdowns.
Trump is correct, we will eventually reach herd immunity. With a vaccine it’ll go faster. But wo knowing when a vaccine will come we need to offset the harm by a continued spread of the virus vs what harm a total lockdown does, which is massive in many aspects.
When I see people like that woman in Australia who had her home invaded by a Swat team bc she dared to promote a no-lockdown meeting on Facebook. Or that woman in Spain who got violently dragged into a police cruiser for failing to wear a face mask; well it looks to me the world has gone completely insane.
This is a fairly mild flu virus that 99% of those who catches it won’t even be very affected by except for a few days of fever and a bit of coughing.
Sure you can point to individual examples who fared worse, but those happen every year from the seasonal flu and even from the common cold. Individual examples mean NOTHING in a pandemic. And yes, this is a pandemic, just not a very bad one.
This must be the worst and most counter productive agenda taken to a new virus in all on mankind. And it’s dangerous bc when the dust settles and the vast majority realize their livelihoods were crushed based on a fucking hoax, first of all they’re gonna be angry and later on if an actually bad decease comes around they’re gonna call “fool me once” on it.
Kinda like the swine flu vaccine where way more people got hurt by the vaccine than of the initial flu. Ok you could argue that wo the vaccine the swine flu would have gone rampant, but who knows.
What I know, and I got swept up in it and took that shot, is that one guy I know got narcolepsia from it and one other got some weird shit with his balance system so now he can’t go on an airplane and can hardly ride an elevator for more than a few floors. So basically two lives severely restricted bc of some virus scare and a vaccine push (which of course there’s big money to be made by). And those two are just from my own personal circle, so it stands to reason 5here are way many more.
So thank you, but no, I’ll not be willingly injected by some Bill Gates mystery juice, I’d much rather just get Corona and cough for a few days and then be alright and w natural antibodies.
"Corona is just like the flu but w a little bit higher mortality…"
Roughly 10 times higher according to the CDC. And it's considerably more transmissible. Average annual deaths in the United States from influenza run around 37,000. We're already at 200,000 and rackin' up dead bodies from the coronavirus at over 1,000 per day and rising. On track to hit 400,000 dead from coronavirus by the end of the year, and rackin' up dead bodies at a rate of 3,000 per day (If the IHME folks are to be believed.)
Rather more severe than the flu.
Yeah. Bc you today rack up everybody and all dyin as from Corona. You even. Have those two clear cases where one got snot dead and one fell from a ladder, both of em vere tallied as Corona deaths.
And your medical facilikties have an economic reason for deeming I’ll. Codona. 5hey win eit6er way.
I suspect you're feeding us your favored imaginings from the 4chan crowd again. But, I'll let you show us otherwise.
1. What's the name of the "one got snot dead", and where did he get snot? And when? And who added him to the coronavirus death count instead of listing him as a gun fatality?
2. What's the name of the coronavirus attributed death that actually died from a fall off a ladder? And where and when did he get dead and then added to the covid-19 fatalities instead of listed as accidental death? Where and when? And a name. And which agent or agency listed them as covid-19 deaths. Not much to ask for such a claim.
("Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"--Carl Sagan)
And you’re like : let’s just shut the whole world down cause of a mild flu...
Yeah, right.
I think this analysis is correct.
The durability of both support and opposition to Trump shows how the motivation for voters' choices is shifting from transitory measures of performance, such as the traditional metrics of peace and prosperity, toward bedrock attitudes about demographic, cultural and economic change. The immovability of the battle lines in 2020 captures how thoroughly the two parties are now unified -- and separated -- by their contrasting attitudes toward these fundamental changes, with Trump mobilizing overwhelming support from the voters who are hostile to them, no matter what else happens, and the contrasting coalition of Americans who welcome this evolution flocking toward the Democrats.
I think your author is mistaken with the inclusion of "economic change" in his "bedrock attitudes". A surprising percentage of the dedicated Trumpkins are hostile to Trump's actual economic policies (as opposed to the economic policies he espouses but does not try to implement). They're willing to overlook his betrayal of their economic interests because of their devotion to the two other "bedrock attitudes" mentioned; i.e. the continued social superiority of their demographic, and, of course, the culture wars--for them the all consuming overarching every other thing culture wars. (Of course, they're used to doing that with the "Establishment" Republican Party as well.)
That economic policy problem is what's going to make it difficult for the Republican Party to ever reassemble post-Trump.
Probably ought to add a caveat here:
"Of course, they're used to doing that with the 'Establishment'
Republican Party as well."
And by that I meant that they're used to the "Establishment" Republicans promising benefits to the middle and working classes that never materialize from Republican economic policies (and that the "Establishment" Republicans didn't intend to deliver in the first place). But, there is a caveat to that--Trump did add tariffs to the middle class/working class economic woes. That was new.
But the empty economic promises are certainly not new.
The Republican "base" voters are used to that. They know it's bullshit they're being fed by the Republican Party, but even if they're struggling economically, they're still white, and that's important to them, and then the culture wars trump everything, maybe even being white.
Certainly it trumps economics.
And that's the point I was trying to make.
I think your author is mistaken with the inclusion of "economic change" in his "bedrock attitudes".
I think he was referring to the change from an industrial based economy to an information based economy. There are still those Trump supporters who believe him when he says he'll bring those factory jobs back. What was that saying, "there's a sucker born every minute"?
Ironically it is the virus that may bring more jobs back than Trump.
*whispers softly*
Are you sure that comment was from the real Marcus? He called himself ",marcus".
Or perhaps he was visiting one of those unsocial distanced bars...?
"Ironically it is the virus that may bring more jobs
back than Trump."
I think you'll find that the virus has accelerated the trend to robots and mechanization.
"Trump's anti-trade agenda and a pandemic-induced
recession have combined to shutter factories and accelerate
decades-old trends toward automation, eliminating hundreds
of thousands of manufacturing jobs, many for good,
including in the Rust Belt states he needs to win in
November."
Politico
The virus may bring back "manufacturing", broadly defined, but it'll be mechanized. Fracking has given us cheap energy. Robots now operate cheaper here than they do in China. (The owners may buy Chinese built robots, but they'll wanna run them on American cheap energy.)
"I think he was referring to the change from an industrial based
economy to an information based economy."
I'll look at that again. Maybe you're right. There definitely are lots of good ol' boys who don't wanna learn to write computer code nor any of that other "fancy stuff". They want high paying, medium to low skill jobs to come back and nothing less than that. They wanna make good money in the coal mines again, or doing repetitive welding of a select cross-bar on an assembly line, or like that. And nothing less.
"I'll look at that again."
He does define his terms as you said. However, after that he pretty much abandons the notion of a distinct "economic" expectation, unique to the two tribes, effectively subsuming economic factors into the greater culture war. (Which is, I think, entirely correct--it's the least important of the three proposed "distinguishing features" by a long shot, and is mostly, as he defines it, just a sub-set of the cultural distinctions.)
A Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday has Senator Susan Collins, at 42%, down 12 points to her Democratic challenger, who's at 54%. It also has Senator Lindsey Graham tied with his Democratic challenger at 48% each--think on that; in South Carolina a Democrat is tied with Lindsey Graham; that's a fairly big deal.
Unfortunately, Mitch McConnell is sailing along without much trouble in Kentucky.
It looks like cases of Covid are spiking again in Europe. I would think that would be expected if the virus is still around and there are those who are still susceptible.
The virus may bring back "manufacturing", broadly defined, but it'll be mechanized.
Yes, you are probably right about that. So those wishing for manufacturing jobs are out of luck no matter how you look at it.
So I had a "discussion" this morning regarding the blocking of a tweet on Twitter by PragerU.
This is the tweet:
American doctors are holding a "White Coat Summit" in Washington, D.C. to address "a massive disinformation campaign" by the media about coronavirus. Watch as Dr Stella Immanuel tackles the media's narrative about hydroxychloroquine... And they posted a video.
He was trying to prove bias against conservative posting because Twitter had blocked this account. He showed me a couple of tweets by CNN referring to Trump being wrong about studies of hydroxychloroquine. This one was in April and then CNN posted a tweet about hydroxychlorquine being effective in treating patients in hospitals. That was in July.
So based on those CNN tweets and this ban of PragerU's tweet he was claiming bias against conservative views.
Twitter's reasoning went thus:
Violating the policy on spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19.
We understand that during times of crisis and instability, it is difficult to know what to do to keep yourself and your loved ones safe. Under this policy, we require the removal of content that may pose a risk to people's health, including content that goes directly against guidance from authoritative sources of global and local public health information.
Twitter then went on to post links from WHO.
I'm guessing one has to be "signed up" to twitter to view that post.
It's becoming a staple of the self-described "conservative" movement that the powers that be on Twitter and Facebook and even YouTube are all conspiring to suppress their alternative "truth" on account of the management hates Trump.
The Corona virus is obviasly real, but t6e response in many places are a fucking hoax. It could and should be treated like a bad strain of the seasonal influenza. These insane lockdowns make more harm than good, way more.
MinnesotaPublicRadio reporting on a story that the Minneapolis Police Department are engaging in a "work stoppage"--where they show up and clock in and get paid, but refuse to actually do their jobs.
I'm guessing one has to be "signed up" to twitter to view that post.
Well, I'm thinking you can't view it anymore. Someone took a screen shot before it was disappeared.
It's becoming a staple of the self-described "conservative" movement that the powers that be on Twitter and Facebook and even YouTube are all conspiring to suppress their alternative "truth" on account of the management hates Trump.
Yes. You can include CNN in that list too.
I got the impression that the person I was talking to got most of his information from the internet. He doesn't read newspapers or watch television.
These insane lockdowns make more harm than good, way more.
Tell that to the poor medical people who are trying to care for all the Covid-19 cases.
“What I am sort of flabbergasted by right now is colleagues, who a very short time ago were calling for abolition, are now suggesting we should be putting more resources and funding into MPD,” Cunningham said.
LOL! Typical politicians, swaying with the wind.
I can see where the MPD is overworked and understaffed. After the riots there were quite a few resignations. But that can be said for many other businesses too.
I don't know about deliberately not arresting people who commit crimes. If that is true those officers should be fired for dereliction of duty.
Of course, with the power of the police union I am sure that wouldn't happen.
Guess I'll go check out Biden's town hall for a bit. See if there is anything interesting going on...
"Well, I'm thinking…it was disappeared."
That would explain things. I hadn't realized that you'd been arguing off of a screenshot.
Lynnette: I don't know about deliberately not arresting people who commit crimes. If that is true those officers should be fired for dereliction of duty.
If your racist BLM pals had their way it would be illegal to even report a crime committed by a black person. I'm starting to lean toward Trump again after watching videos like this. Sure, Trump's an oaf, but who needs Biden pandering to racist goons like these. (This one's a federal employee, just by the by).
I’m thinking a LOT of Americans will share that sentiment Pete. They may not really like Trump but they see the Democrats basically enabling the BLM and Antifa goons who are burning, looting and putting real fear into communities, and they’ll go: “fuck that, I’d rather have the orange bastard in office 4 more years”
On Corona and the Swedish approach you might find this interview w Sweden’s “Corona Tzar” Anders Tegnell informative:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh9wso6bEAc&t=486s
"I’m thinking a LOT of Americans will share that sentiment Pete."
New polling out today jointly done by the New York Times and Siena College suggests you're way wrong in your thinkin' there. (link)
Biden leads Trump (but only marginally) on handling issues of "law and order".
"Racism in the criminal justice system" is bigger problem than "riots in American cities (wide margin), and Biden obviously does better on that as well--much wider margin this time.
AND, unusually, most people believe it would be better if this time the same political party held the Presidency and the Senate. (This is new stuff here; they're not going for divided government this time.)
You may wanna modify your thinkin' there Marcus.
…"riots in American cities"…"
But those are nation wide polls, so they mean fuckall. No one expect Trump to win more votes than Biden. Thad be all but 8mpossible. But we expect him to win more electoral votes, and he most likely will.
"But those are nation wide polls…"
Except for the parts that were individual state polls.
(I picked that poll to mention today because it came out today, and it tracked right along with all the other, prior national and state polls that show Biden beating Trump on "law and order" issues--narrowly in some states, wider margins in others--and beating him by a comfortably wider margin on the more general "racial justice" theme.)
Idk, but y’all are seeming increasingly irrelevant in any case. Possibly we should try and get on the good side w China as quick as possible. Rather than sidin w a fuckall of a mess bowing down to Africans for no reason, shutting down your ceonomy for a mild flu virus, teaching your young boys to become trannies andgiving them hormones to change their sexual orientation.
You really seem like Rome just before it fell. Degenerate, disgusting, completely apart from Christianity. Where vile women ruled and men were busy masturbating into each others anuses. Well, it fell, and modern day America seems to model it.
The Other Police Violence, a brief study of police misconduct engaged in to obtain fraudulent criminal convictions against black targets, in The Atlantic. (Not too long.)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died.
I hadn't realized that you'd been arguing off of a screenshot.
He just brought in some hard copies of the tweets for me to see. I'm not on Twitter.
"Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died."
Damn!
I'm starting to lean toward Trump again after watching videos like this.
There is no reason to use the poor reasoning of one person in a situation to support poor reasoning in another.
Damn!
My thought exactly.
"There is no reason to use the poor reasoning…to support poor
reasoning…"
You misunderstand Petes' motivations. He's become a regular YouTuber in search of poor reasoning.
Trump's already saying he will put forth the name of his nominee to fill RBG's empty seat on the Supreme Court.
*sigh*
Of course.
The only question is can McConnell get 51 votes prior to the election?
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
(Might be time to remind McConnell (and the other Republican Senators) that the Democrats can kill the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court to eleven seats on a bare majority vote, should they retake the Senate majority in November as well as taking the Presidency.)
Of course, I don't think Biden should get anywhere close to the "reminder" I mentioned above.
I think Biden's position should be that it's simply inconceivable that any self-respecting candidate for the Supreme Court would accept Trump's nomination unless and until Trump has won reëlection in November. And there's no sense speculating on the possibility of a candidate without any self-respect.
McConnell has followed up by announcing that "Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate." (emphasis mine)
[Lynnette]: "There is no reason to use the poor reasoning of one person in a situation to support poor reasoning in another."
That is true. However, the person in the video was merely an exemplar. It doesn't take much digging to discover that a majority of BLM activists are equally convinced that police are an existential threat to black people. What's more, they are immune to being convinced by statistics that completely refute that notion. And Democratic politicians are falling over backward to pander to this madness.
See! What'd I tell ya? More anecdote offered as proof.
I'm noticing that the Trump campaign thinks that Ruth Ginsberg's death will revitalize their campaign.
"‛This brings home disaffected Republicans because now they
know what’s really at stake.’
***
"‛We are not running solely on the Covid response and the
economy,’ said Dan Eberhart, a major Republican donor and
CEO of a drilling services company. ‛This resets the race.’"
Politico
I don't get it really, maybe it's true, but…. Everybody already knew Ginsberg was just holding on. Next President was gonna be able to replace her; that was already baked into the race.
The only change is that Trump now has an opportunity to replace her even if he's not reëlected. If that deed's done before the election the nothing's changed by the election. If he doesn't get the replacement confirmed until after the election then his reëlection or not still doesn't matter to the composition of the Senate, and they can possibly still confirm a lame-duck appointment even if Trump loses and the Senate changes hands, 'cause none of that takes effect until January of ‛21.
It's possible that it'll make a huge difference to his supporters, but I don't see it. Logically it won't matter now that she's dead and there's still time for them to nominate and confirm a replacement. They got 'til January.
I'm thinking they're just whistling past the graveyard on this one; hopin' like hell it suddenly jacks up the enthusiasm that was already near fully jacked up. But, dedicated Trumpkins ain't necessarily logical, so maybe Trump's campaign people got a better grasp of the fall-out from this one than I do.
Lee “, should they (Democrats) retake the Senate majority in November as well as taking the Presidency.”
They won’t take back either. Lol. Trump will appoint Ginsbergs successor no matter what. Before the election or after.
I’m thinking he’ll press to do it before the election, BC thats the kinda guy he is and he’d like that as an additional accomplishment to point to in the last weeks of the campaign. If he’s party rallies he’ll get that done. But it’s by no means a given all in his party will rally. So 50/50 if the new judge is appointed before the elections, but it doesn’t really matter as Trump is winning and will appoint the new judge at some point.
Here's another study for you Petes. I know this is from 2016, but I liked the depth of the research. They studied the circumstances of the incidents, not just the body count. And I know how you like facts and figures.
I suspect that if these people feel there is a problem, there really is a problem. It is not just the imagination of BLM or left wing loonies. I also found it interesting that they found such a high rate of incident's involving mental health issues. This was one thing people in Minneapolis were trying to inform us of when they suggested changing the response to some incidents from police to mental health workers. Would that be workable? I don't know, I am no expert on mental health.
An excerpt:
Introduction
Several high-profile cases in the U.S. have drawn public attention to the use of lethal force by law enforcement (LE), yet research on such fatalities is limited. Using data from a public health surveillance system, this study examined the characteristics and circumstances of these violent deaths to inform prevention.
Methods
All fatalities (N=812) resulting from use of lethal force by on-duty LE from 2009 to 2012 in 17 U.S. states were examined using National Violent Death Reporting System data. Case narratives were coded for additional incident circumstances.
Results
Victims were majority white (52%) but disproportionately black (32%) with a fatality rate 2.8 times higher among blacks than whites. Most victims were reported to be armed (83%); however, black victims were more likely to be unarmed (14.8%) than white (9.4%) or Hispanic (5.8%) victims. Fatality rates among military veterans/active duty service members were 1.4 times greater than among their civilian counterparts. Four case subtypes were examined based on themes that emerged in incident narratives: about 22% of cases were mental health related; 18% were suspected “suicide by cop” incidents, with white victims more likely than black or Hispanic victims to die in these circumstances; 14% involved intimate partner violence; and about 6% were unintentional deaths due to LE action. Another 53% of cases were unclassified and did not fall into a coded subtype. Regression analyses identified victim and incident characteristics associated with each case subtype and unclassified cases.
Conclusions
Knowledge about circumstances of deaths due to the use of lethal force can inform the development of prevention strategies, improve risk assessment, and modify LE response to increase the safety of communities and officers and prevent fatalities associated with LE intervention.
If that deed's done before the election the nothing's changed by the election.
One analyst on CNN was speculating that it might be to the advantage of Trump to wait until after the election as an encouragement for people (Republicans) to get out to vote for him. I don't know that I buy that as a good strategy. The same could prove a catalyst for Democrats to get out to vote against him. But she did say she didn't think Trump would do that. He is too anxious to nominate someone.
Btw, I voted yesterday. I thought, what the heck? I was right across the street from the county election office and stopped in on impulse. I didn't have to wait long, but there were people there doing what I was doing. More in fact than when I voted in the primary or that I recall in 2016.
You realize that Petes' offered video was relying on that bogus, first "corrected" and then completely "withdrawn", study that Petes had earlier tried to sell here? The one from the National Academy of Sciences, don't you? (If you didn't know, you should know it now.)
The narrator goes even further than the flawed study and intentionally and fairly flagrantly misreported and misrepresented the findings of the now withdrawn PNAS study. He claims, and I quote "In fact, when there is a police shooting, black citizens are more likely to have been shot by black officers".
That is entirely bogus. The PNAS study never made any such finding, even before it got corrected and then withdrawn.
So, it's probably just as well that the protesters in the street were skeptical of the narrator's representations. He was lying to them.
I'm sure Petes knows this. I'm sure this was all intentional on Petes' part as well.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Btw, I voted yesterday."
I've given it some consideration. I'm planning on being in the near vicinity of the County Registrar's Office early next week, and I've thought about putting in my absentee vote that morning and being done with it. I'm still thinking it over.
"Trump will appoint Ginsbergs successor… Before the
election or after."
I think Trump's nomination will occur before the election. The Senate confirmation may well be scheduled for after.
"…but it doesn’t really matter as Trump is winning…"
Gotta kinda suspect that's just the sort of blindness we'll be facing after Biden tromps Trump in the denominated "swing states" in six weeks. Could get nasty in the streets in the cities across the "Old South" if they cling with the same dedication as does Marcus.
The Trumpkins/Republicans seem not to remember that they're hoping to win their policy preferences before the Supreme Trumpkins specifically because they lost the culture wars in the political branches of government and lost the ability to get their wins electorally. Ramping up interest in the culture wars isn't likely to turn into a winning electoral strategy for them just here all of a sudden on account of the old woman finally died.
But, that's not likely what they're gonna admit happened after Trump is electorally turned out of office, even though it's been happening to them on a consistent basis these last several years.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The more I think about this, the more I think that Trump'll almost certainly nominate a replacement, and the Republican Senate will likely confirm his nomination in a "lame duck" session. But my instincts tell me this'll create more electoral "enthusiasm" for turning the Republican Senate out of office than it will heighten enthusiasm in the dedicated Trumpkin/Right Wing Christer coalition.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Perhaps the greatest danger the Republic faces is the possibility of a 4-4 split decision on questions concerning the November election, with the Supreme Trumpkins opposing the rest of the high court in cases arising from Trump's attempts to retain his hold on the Presidency. I can envision Trump defying controlling court orders that would strip him of his office in such a case. An Appeals Court might rule against Trump, and the high court might deadlock (leaving the appellate ruling in place) and then Trump might refuse to obey it, even though it would be a supposedly "controlling" judicial decision.
Things could dicey in such a case.
"Perhaps the greatest danger the Republic faces is the
possibility of a 4-4 split decision on questions concerning the
November election…"
↑↑
And then again, maybe that's not the greatest danger to the Republic. I may have not been imaginative enough.
It's been suggested that Trump should make a "recess appointment" to the Supreme Court so's to establish a solid Trumpkin majority among the Justices (five to four counting Chief Justice John Roberts as a non-Trumpkin Justice--six to three if Roberts votes with the Trumpkin majority), waiting in anticipation, ready and eager to decide any potential election questions in Trump's favor.
The Senate is currently scheduled to recess for three weeks, starting on the 12th of October, with another recess occurring around Thanksgiving Day.
[Lynnette]: "Here's another study for you Petes. I know this is from 2016, but I liked the depth of the research. They studied the circumstances of the incidents, not just the body count. And I know how you like facts and figures."
Yes, I do like facts and figures as I think one's opinions should be informed by the evidence.
That study doesn't even consider the race of the police officers involved, let alone whether they preferentially kill one race or another. Nobody disputes that black people are killed disproportionately. That on its own does not prove that there is racism involved. Men are more likely to be killed than women -- does that mean there is an anti-male bias in the police force? No. People in general are very ignorant about how to interpret statistics, which is why it's so easy to be misled.
The BLM claim is that there is systemic racism in the police force. They argue that black people are killed disproportionately by white police. But what is their evidence for this? I say that there isn't any. This is not to say there isn't any racism, just that there isn't any evidence for it. In other words, the BLM claim is unfounded.
Consider the factors which are likely to influence whether a person in a given group is likely to be shot by a police officer in another given group:
* Proportion of that group in the population;
* Proportion of that group in the police force;
* Number of encounters between civilians and police in those groups;
* Proportion of crime carried out by civilians in that group.
Figures are meaningless unless you control for all those factors. In particular, it is not immediately relevant that one group is killed with higher frequency than another. Remember, the claim that BLM are making is that a given white police officer, when faced with otherwise identical situations, is more likely to kill a black civilian than a white one. This is an extraordinarily difficult claim to validate, reflecting as it does on the private motivations of the officer. It's an equally difficult claim to refute, for the same reasons. But what is not relevant, without controlling for the other factors I mentioned above, is how many black people are killed, or how many are killed by white officers.
The breakdown of number of police officers by race is remarkably consistent with the representation of each race in the general workforce. Police departments in the US would seem to be remarkably free of racism when it comes to hiring policies. In fact, black, white, Hispanic, American Indian, and mixed race people are all very slightly overrepresented in the police force compared to the general workface. This is balanced by the only significant racial disparity -- that Asian Americans are significantly underrepresented. (I guess they're too busy being doctors and scientists).
So if proportion of police by race matches the general demographics, what about the other factors? We've gone over the FBI crime statistics here before, so there is no point repeating them. Black people are enormously overrepresented as perpetrators in crime statistics. They are also more likely to live in high crime areas, and so could be expected to have more frequent encounters with police. But equally, those encounters are more likely to be with police officers of their own race.
(cont'd ...)
(... cont'd)
This is where the the National Academy of Sciences report is relevant. It shows that the race of a police officer is not a determinant in the race of a person killed in a fatal police shooting. (Nope, it doesn't matter that the report was retracted as ole' Lee points out. The above statistic is reiterated in both the authors' correction and retraction, and is not disputed by anyone. Furthermore, the NAS report is not the only one that comes to the same conclusion).
What the NAS report does not show is that black people are killed in equal proportions to white ones. The opposite is the case. Black people -- particularly black young men -- are far more likely to be killed than whites in fatal officer-involved shootings. But as I said, this is in no way relevant to whether white police officers preferentially kill black people. Black people are way overrepresented in all violent gun deaths, and other black people are overwhelming likely (95%) to be the perpetrators in those crimes. White people are also more likely to be shot by other white people. The bottom line is that people are more likely to be shot by people they live near, and the same would seem to extend to the police force.
BLM seem curiously unconcerned by the extreme levels of black-on-black violence in general. It seems that black lives only matter when there's an opportunity to pin something on the white population. I don't say this glibly. The underlying BLM ideology is that "whiteness" is inextricably and irredeemably bound up with racism and power structures. If you're white you're racist, and every encounter between a white and black person involves racism. Those are the tenets of critical race theory and "white fragility". To many people -- me included -- this is odious reverse racism, but the ideas are gaining currency.
"It shows that the race of a police officer is not a determinant in
the race of a person killed in a fatal police shooting."
No, it did not show that. (Neither did it prove that the race of a police officer necessarily was "a determinant" (to use your phraseology). There were too many other variables for them to be able to actually prove that one way or another, although one of the authors was eager enough to speculate on the subject outside of his evidence. However a failure to find the proof you want is not the proof you pretend it to be.)
Btw, I forgot to LOL at Lee's hilarious comment that "Biden's position should be that it's simply inconceivable that any self-respecting candidate for the Supreme Court would accept Trump's nomination unless and until Trump has won reëlection in November. And there's no sense speculating on the possibility of a candidate without any self-respect."
Yeah, 'cos a Democratic preznit would never attempt to stuff the court with partisan justices under the same circumstances. Who do ya think yore foolin'? RBG's timing was simply unfortunate for y'all. And the next most likely justice to go -- Breyer -- is a Clinton appointee.
"BLM seem curiously unconcerned by the extreme levels of
black-on-black violence in general."
Actually it's you who are extremely unconcerned with the level of black-on-black violence. You never bother to think about it except when you try to pretend it's a defense to the problem of police violence against black people. Otherwise it doesn't seem to ever bother you one little bit.
(Polling does, however suggest that black people living in high-crime areas are considerably less interested in that nonsensical "defund the police" mantra than are the overly liberal activists (many of them white) who chant the mantra. This is almost certainly because, contrary to your assertions, they are concerned by the levels of black-on-black violence in their neighborhoods.)
You've lost all ability to think logically during your absence. Been hangin' 'round the YouTube channels too much I'd reckon. You confuse anecdote for evidence, and then there's this:
"Yeah, 'cos a Democratic preznit would never attempt to stuff
the court with partisan justices…."
Even if that were true, it's irrelevant; ain't got squat to do with what Biden's current political position should be to improve his chances of picking up a few swing voters.
And, just by the way, it was unethical of you to have used that PNAC study without admitting to those whom you were trying to convince that the study had been finally withdrawn from publication.
[Lee C.]: "No, it did not show that [the race of a police officer is not a determinant in the race of a person killed in a fatal police shooting]."
I have long since learned that there is no point engaging with y'all over definitions. Yore paroxysms over the meaning of "if" come to mind.
Therefore I will merely reiterate exactly what the authors did say, and I quote: "among civilians fatally shot, officer race did not predict civilian race and there was no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities".
[Lee]: "Actually it's you who are extremely unconcerned with the level of black-on-black violence. You never bother to think about it except when you try to pretend it's a defense to the problem of police violence against black people."
Given that I've never said much about it one way or another, and indeed have not said much about anything on this forum in recent times, I'm gonna suggest that your comment is the result of irateness rather than evidence.
[Lee]: "This is almost certainly because, contrary to your assertions, they are concerned by the levels of black-on-black violence in their neighborhoods."
Of course, if you bothered to peer through that red mist, you would notice that I did not refer to black people in general but to BLM members. Sensible people of all races -- but particularly those affected by crime -- realise the stupidity of defunding the police. By one recent estimate, 900 additional black people died as a result of reduced policing operations following from BLM protests. And yes, white middle class liberals are some of the worst offenders when it comes to this novel anti-white racism.
And, once again, just for the record….
Black high crime areas are high crime areas compared to the national average.
Turns out that white high crime areas are also high crime areas compared to the national average.
Same goes for Hispanic majority high crime areas.
Turns out that high crime areas, by definition, have higher crime rates than the national average.
Also turns out that, if one controls for socio-economic variables, then the crime rate between black and white populations is negligible. (Probably true as well for Hispanics although I'm not sure it's ever been the subject of controlled study.)
Poor people simply commit more (enforced) crimes than do rich people, and blacks are more likely to be poor in America than are whites.
Control for the socio-economic variables and the apparent criminal difference is negligible.
Just as I said.
"…and there was no evidence of anti-Black…"
The lack of evidence is not evidence.
[Lee]: "ain't got squat to do with what Biden's current political position should be to improve his chances of picking up a few swing voters."
And there was me thinkin' y'all were putting it forth as an ethical stance. Thanks for confirming y'all are merely engaging in the sordid partisan antics of USian presidential politics.
"I did not refer to black people in general but to BLM members."
And yet you tried to expand your complaints about these limited "members" into coverage of the protesters in general.
(And, just who are these "members" in your taxonomy? Or, do you even know? Or do yoy even give a shit for that matter? I s'pect you don't give a shit, so long as hiding behind the distinction, hoping we don't notice your wallowing in layers of semantics, allows you paint the BLM protests with accusations of extremism.)
[Lee]: "Poor people simply commit more (enforced) crimes than do rich people, and blacks are more likely to be poor in America than are whites."
"Enforced crimes" is a new one on me. That notwithstanding, people who commit more crimes are more likely to be shot by the police. So I'm not sure what y'all is arguing about.
"Thanks for confirming y'all are merely engaging in the
sordid partisan antics of USian presidential politics."
You're pretty slow on the uptake there. I think it was obvious to everybody else.
[Lee]: "...allows you paint the BLM protests with accusations of extremism."
They are extremists, since their main premise is unfounded.
"'Enforced crimes' is a new one on me."
"White-collar" crimes are significantly unenforced in the United States. (So are minor drug offenses committed by white folks, but that's a different phenomenon.)
[Lee]: "Just as I said. "…and there was no evidence of anti-Black…". The lack of evidence is not evidence."
Are you having a completely stupid moment? I said BLM's premise was unfounded. There is no need for evidence to the contrary. The lack of evidence means it's unfounded.
"I said BLM's premise was unfounded."
Yeah, I saw that, but you saying that doesn't make it true. And the lack of competent evidence on the subject (in your preferred, withdrawn from publication study) doesn't prove it's true either.
So y'all reckon BLM can make any unevidenced claims they like, and place the burden of proof on everyone else? Figgers.
And it was still unethical for you to have neglected to mention that your preferred study had been withdrawn from publication for having problems with its evidence not supporting the conclusions the authors wanted people to draw.
First of all, I didn't mention the NAS study at all until after you did. Secondly, I made no mention of conclusions its authors wanted people to draw. I cited exactly one fact that is reiterated on both their correction and retraction and is not withdrawn. Quit lyin'.
"First of all, I didn't mention the NAS study at all
until after you did."
Yeah, I saw you trying to slide that in without getting caught at it. You tried to conceal the reference in your YouTube link, get it in there without actually mentioning it:
""What's more, they are immune to being convinced by
statistics that completely refute that notion. And Democratic
politicians are falling over backward to pander to this
madness."
Petes @ Fri Sep 18, 09:33:00 pm ↑↑
But, I caught it.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"So y'all reckon BLM can make any unevidenced claims they like…"
They claim that black people, especially unarmed black men, are much more likely to be killed by cops (almost three times more likely) than are unarmed white men. The evidence is out there. We all know it.
They claim that black people in general are much more likely to be stopped and harassed than are white people. That evidence is out there as well. We all know it.
I don't think they, or we, have to stop to argue the evidence with you each and every time there's a street march or a sign-waving going on.
And I'm pretty much done with it for this time. It's been well, it's been dealin' with Petes again (why the hell can't you stick with YouTube?)…
He's all yours now Lynnette. I've softened him up a bit.
And it was still unethical for you to have neglected to mention that your preferred study had been withdrawn from publication for having problems with its evidence not supporting the conclusions the authors wanted people to draw.
Ciao for now.
"I cited exactly one fact that is reiterated on both their
correction and retraction and is not withdrawn."
Okay, wait, there's this one thing I missed. ↑↑
That's a lie. You tried to twist their statement about there being "no evidence" on the subject into a claim that there was evidence exonerating the police. That's equally as unethical as was your initial use of the withdrawn publication without acknowledging that its found flaws forced its withdrawal. You know better than this shit. You're just being duplicitous.
And with that…
Ciao for now--for real this time.
Moving right along to matters at hand….
Trump said yesterday in North Carolina that he would be nominating a woman for the Supreme Court this coming week.
That leaves the question of confirmation. I'd guess they'll put off confirmation until the lame-duck session after November 3rd.
And there's still the possibility that Trump could make a "recess appointment" of a new Justice who'll then help write the judicial opinion confirming Trump's seizure of the Office of President, in spite of any countervailing electoral majorities. It would be a convenient circle--the President installs a Justice without Senate approval, and the new Justice provides the necessary last vote to confirm the President in Office in spite of the election results.
I don't think the "founding fathers" thought that one through quite far enough.
I was just listening to Joe Biden giving remarks at the National Constitution Center in Pennsylvania regarding RBG's death and the possible nomination and confirmation vote of her replacement before the election.
Other then one mistake it was a very good speech. Not only was it well written, but just as important he seemed sincere and sounded very much like a President should sound.
"Other then one mistake…"
???
[Petes] "The BLM claim is that there is systemic racism in the police force. They argue that black people are killed disproportionately by white police" My emphasis
Do they? Or are they saying that Black people are disproportionately killed by police?
[Petes} " Black people are enormously overrepresented as perpetrators in crime statistics. They are also more likely to live in high crime areas, and so could be expected to have more frequent encounters with police."
How many times have Black people been stopped by police simply because they were Black? Because they "fit" the description of a suspect in a crime? Are the police racially profiling people in their dealings with the public?
[The 14th Amendment] nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
[From the study I cited] "Victims were majority white (52%) but disproportionately black (32%) with a fatality rate 2.8 times higher among blacks than whites.
Why was the fatality rate higher for Blacks?
Why was George Floyd killed in what should have been a routine arrest? Why did Chauvin feel that level of force was acceptable?
[Petes] "BLM seem curiously unconcerned by the extreme levels of black-on-black violence in general."
I think the Black populace is concerned about violence in their communities. But they don't need to march to get people to notice that though.
The underlying BLM ideology is that "whiteness" is inextricably and irredeemably bound up with racism and power structures.
But as you said there are Black police officers who are part of that power structure. If they are racially profiling based on crime statistics are they not also part of the problem? BLM is concerned with police violence against Black people. They don't specify color of the police.
???
In Biden's remarks he mentioned the number of deaths of American's due to Covid-19 twice. The first time he appeared to misspeak and said close to 200 "million" rather than 200 "thousand".
Schumer and AOC spoke regarding the nomination for the open seat on the Supreme Court.
Schumer said bluntly that if the Republicans nominate and vote before the election is complete and the Democrats take back the Senate everything will be on the table. I assume he is alluding to increasing the number of Justices on the Supreme Court as you mentioned earlier. I am not sure that this kind of threat is a good strategy. It could very well backfire and encourage Trump's core supporters to get out and vote.
AOC spoke to encourage Progressives to get out and vote.
"It could very well backfire and encourage Trump's core
supporters to get out and vote."
Trump's ‛core supporters’ are already jacked up to get out and vote. Trump's been pushing their buttons every day for four years now, and he knows where those buttons are. That's what he's been learning in those many hours he spends watching FoxNews' Greatest Primetime Wonder Show. Ain't anything the Democrats can say or do is gonna add perceptibly to the dedicated Trumpkins sense of urgency. That's already dialed up to max.
Recent voting patterns suggest that the dedicated Trumpkins are recently inclined to over-vote, as in vote more than once per election. But that seems to be also a result of Trump and FoxNews getting them all jacked up rather than a response to anything the Democrats have actually said or done. And, besides, they usually get caught.
Lee: “Gotta kinda suspect that's just the sort of blindness we'll be facing after Biden tromps Trump in the denominated "swing states" in six weeks. Could get nasty in the streets in the cities across the "Old South" if they cling with the same dedication as does Marcus.”
That’s probably not as near as nasty as it’ll get when Trump wins, which I believe will happen, and Antifa and BLM goes apeshit in densely populated cities.
Should Trump lose you might have a few maniacs on the right do some shootings, and they could be bad, but they won’t as any sustained orginasations try and “bring down the system” as the left would do if Trump wins. You’d prolly have them Bugaloo Bois holding rallies and waving flags for some time, but in areas where no one really resist them. Then they’d be off into the woods preparing for the Apocalypse.
If Trump wins however you’re gonna see massive mayhem in large cities. The left is way more prone to violence even if the right is more readily prepared for it.
"The left is way more prone to violence even if the
right is more readily prepared for it."
It appears that the recent violence has by and large been instigated by the "right" showing up after dark in "left" cities. Much of the arson in Minneapolis was famously the work of white folks come to Minneapolis to start fires in the night (not all of the perps are known, but Lynnette can tell ya that the known ones were white folks come to town). The violence in Kenosha centered around a highly armed Illinois teenager coming in along with his friendly militia members to "protect" an already burned out shell of a building because that's where the lights and cameras were. The recent shootings in Portland, Oregon were instigated by right-wingers convoying into the downtown area where they could, and did, find trouble, evading law enforcement efforts to cut them off along the way.
And you're slingin' bullshit formulated on-line rather than on the scene.
On the other hand Trump's nomination and an early vote to fill RBG's seat could backfire.
Lee:
“ Black high crime areas are high crime areas compared to the national average.
Turns out that white high crime areas are also high crime areas compared to the national average.
Same goes for Hispanic majority high crime areas.”
Yeah, but what portion of blacks, Hispanic and whites linger in “high crime areas”. And also to what degree do criminals from one racial group target another and vice versa.
What is for example the figures on black on white rape, versus white on black rape?
What are the figures on black on white street robbery, VS white on black street robbery?
Do you in America have a problem w whites raping or robbing blacks? Bc from where I’m sitting that’s more or less unheard of.
"Trump's nomination and an early vote to fill RBG's
seat could backfire."
Yeah, that's my thinkin' on the matter; most likely outcome is the left gets fired up this time to match the fire on the right.
"Yeah, but what portion of blacks, Hispanic and whites
linger in “high crime areas”."
"Linger"? That a Swedish alternate spelling for "livin' there"? Your Muslim immigrants "linger" in the ghettos they've been confined to? That how you see it?
Lee
“ It appears that the recent violence has by and large been instigated by the "right" showing up after dark in "left" cities. Much of the arson in Minneapolis was famously the work of white folks come to Minneapolis to start fires in the night (not all of the perps are known, but Lynnette can tell ya that the known ones were white folks come to town). ”
For real? So all of the riots I see on YouTube where white Antifa are fighting the cops and smashing windows and breaking stuff and then the blacks follow up by looting the stores, that’s actually some kind of right wing conspiracy? That’s your take on it?
"I see on YouTube where white Antifa are fighting the cops…"
They're only known to be "white Antifa" to you because you so desperately want them to be "white Antifa" rather than white supremacists.
"…and then the blacks follow up by looting the stores…"
That one I'll give ya. Like the looting in Iraq after the Ba'ath were deposed. It makes no sense, but it's a common reaction from a pissed off populace who think they've been held down too long. But, it still makes no sense. ('Course, fat people eating ice cream doesn't make a lot of sense either and yet it happens.)
Back to the matter at hand…
The RBG successor problem, as I see it, is that the Republicans have been politicizing the Supreme Court for decades now. It's been a decades long project on the political right to fill The Court with politically inspired ideologues rather than with "umpire" Justices who'll judge cases on their actual legal merits. As a result, The Court is increasingly seen as a partisan instrument. (No point in denying it, the Democrats are now also engaged in a counter-movement to get their own "democratic" Justices on the high court. However, like so many other political arenæ, the Republicans developed an early and insurmountable lead in the race to the bottom. And they have run that race to the bottom with a malignant intensity and a wholesale disregard for "the rules" utterly unmatched by the other side. But, I digress….)
The result is the important point. The result is that the Supreme Court is now widely seen as an undemocratic partisan instrument, and reactionary as well, to add insult to that original injury.
That's bad for our democracy. But worse for our democracy would be to ignore the damage done, to not deal with it. And mouthing platitudes nobody's gonna believe ain't dealin' with it. Wishing it were not so ain't dealin' with it either. The Supreme Court's gonna need to be fixed now. Just one more example of the damage the Republican Party has done to this country on its way into its degenerating into the Party of Trump.
Lee:
“ "Linger"? That a Swedish alternate spelling for "livin' there"? Your Muslim immigrants "linger" in the ghettos they've been confined to? That how you see it?”
Yup, for the most part they linger. Stay on welfare, watch their domestic language tv on satellite, give a fuck all to what shenanigans their kids are up to and make more real effort to integrate, because they see our society as weak and godless and they do not want to integrate into it. So yes, they linger.
And wtf are you even on about when you talk about them being “confined” to places that are maybe not the best (but still a whole hell of a lot better that whence they came from, and they were given it for free). What is you suggestion, they should be given the Royal Palace in Stockholm?
We've already been through the Swedish failure to integrate its immigrant population. You're not gonna change your views that such integration is to be fought tooth and nail, and so you're gonna get what you're gonna get. It's too bad too. We've been through that ourselves, and learned better. But, experience is the best teacher they say, and it looks like Sweden's gonna havta live with the failure to integrate its immigrants, learn from the direct experience as it were, as if ya'll were the first to make that horrible mistake.
Fairly short essay in USAToday on why the Republicans really ought not try to ram through one more Supreme Trumpkin: The money quote comes at the end:
"There is no advantage in rushing through a Supreme
Court nomination, not even to appease Donald Trump. If
Republicans lose the election, whatever they do will be
undone by blunt force and it’s Republicans who will suffer the
consequences. If the Republicans win the election, they can
process the nomination at their leisure. If the Senate won’t
refuse to take up this nomination for the good of the country,
perhaps they’ll refuse to take it up out of naked self-interest."
Another book out by one of Robert Mueller's principal deputies, a guy named Andrew Weissmann, who lead one of the investigative and prosecutorial "teams" for Mueller.
The name of the book is "Where Law Ends".
Weissmann's conclusion, Mueller wussed out. He allowed himself to be intimidated by Trump's reputation for vindictiveness; he was afraid of being shut down if he actually pursued the investigation. So, he pretended it was done and shut it down himself.
Lee:
“ We've already been through the Swedish failure to integrate its immigrant population. ”
What if I never wanted any Immigrants to begin with, never wanted or aspired to integrate with any. And when it was forced upon me against my Will they commit gang rapes, robberies, beatings, and the second generation which is born here is even worse than the first, although the first was bad enough,
WHY? Why do we ever put up with this?
The analogy is if you invited a destitute homeless person and he just up and raped your daughter you didn’t even throw him the hell out but instead invited his whole fucking family to squat in your living room. That’s about western “migration policy” as the it is.
"What if I never wanted any Immigrants to begin with…"
Not relevant. You and your fellow Swedes already decided that one; your viewpoint lost.
It's a done deal now. (And it's not my fault, nor are America's blacks to blame for it either.)
But, it does bring up an interesting analogy.
The American right-wingers already lost the culture wars they first instigated.
They're not taking that well either.
"…who led one of the investigative…teams…"
(That one bothered me for some reason.)
Corey Gardner, Republican Senator from Colorado (up for reëlection in November) today announced he's ready to confirm any qualified nominee that Trump proposes (which, in context, means anybody Trump proposes) as the ninth Supreme Trumpkin.
The Democrats' chances of preventing the confirmation of another Supreme Trumpkin before the November election are rapidly evaporating.
CBS News (morning show) is reporting that an unnamed Republican Senator has told them that they already have the 51 votes they need to confirm Trump's pick as the newest Supreme Trumpkin. They don't know who he'll pick yet, but they've already got the votes committed anyway.
They're not gonna risk losing this chance.
They're not gonna risk losing this chance.
No, they are not. Even Romney is falling in line.
So even if by some miracle the American people wake up and get rid of Trump and flip the Senate, giving the Democrats full control, we will still end up with a conservative right-wing Supreme Court. So then the Democrats may feel justified in fighting back just as dirty.
Yup, Mitch McConnell will have his legacy. And it is likely the American people will get screwed out of their health care and a woman's right to choose.
That is Mitch McConnell's and Donald Trump's legacy. As well as all of those who have followed like lemmings over the proverbial cliff.
So Trump was in Minnesota again the other day giving a 2 hour speech in the northern part of the state. He was touting how good a leader General Lee was and how the people in Minnesota have really good genes.
Yes, those were his words.
An interesting piece in the Atlantic about the current battle over the Supreme Court.
The Great Liberal Reckoning Has Begun
Perhaps the most important point in that article was this:
Law is no savior from politics; it is only a temporary reprieve from the struggle between powers over power. Battle is coming. The question is: Do liberals still remember how to fight? Because conservatives certainly do.
"Even Romney is falling in line."
Not really a surprise there. Romney is certainly not a Senate "institutionalist". He's not spent years there steeped in its rituals and traditions and getting comfortable with "the rules". He's always been an executive branch type.
I managed to walk past a tv again this morning (still CBS I think) and there was Lindsey Graham getting real worked up, voice pitch creepin' higher, volume crankin'--longer he talked, louder he talked, even though there was nobody there talkin' agin him. Naked fear. They fear Trump; they fear his dedicated Trumpkins. I was thinkin' that they'd put off the confirmation, hoping that they'd get a Republican majority returned to the Senate, and that would give them an argument for the future that the voters had confirmed Trump's choice (even if the voters hadn't seen fit to suffer four more years of Trump himself). But, watchin' Graham, his voice creepin' towards semi-hysterical as I read it, eyes starting to glass over…. It's all fear; they're outta hope. They're runnin' on fear alone.
(If they lost their majority they'd still have time to confirm whomever in the lame-duck session.)
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
"The Great Liberal Reckoning Has Begun"
Okay, I had to laugh at that. I started a comment last night that began with a review of The Dred Scott Case and then moved on to "the Lochner era" and was intending to tie that history into today's Supreme Trumpkins. But, I gave it up after the second paragraph (explaining the Lochner era) on account of it was way too long already, and I'd just barely gotten started on the subject.
Soon as I get a few minutes again, I'll have to actually read that Atlantic piece.
"…and how the people in Minnesota have really good genes."
I'd heard 'bout that. Trump's runnin' on naked fear as well. He's not even tryin' to hide the racism anymore. Screw the "dog whistles"; he's just gonna say it out loud now.
He may get even more explicit during the next six weeks. We probably won't hear him say "nigger" in front of a crowd, but short of that I don't think there's much that'll surprise me.
Lynnette:
“ So even if by some miracle the American people wake up and get rid of Trump and flip the Senate,”
Don’t you worry, they won’t do either.
*sigh*
Marcus, the shows not over until the fat lady sings.
"Soon as I get a few minutes again…"
He summarized the Lochner era in a single sentence. Hadn't occurred to me to mention it by name and then not explain it, but that did seem to be the key to keeping it short. Then he made up for it by going long on Roe v Wade, which I wasn't even going to mention in this context.
Anyway, my conclusion would have been about the same. They've redefined the game, now it's a fight. Time to fight back or get overrun. They've burned and salted the middle ground; that ground's no longer available; it's fight or get overrun; pick one.
Local PBS's "Frontline" has a two hour special tonight by name of "The Choice 2020: Trump vs. Biden".
My DVR is locked on, waiting to copy.
An interesting letter that appeared in my paper today:
I am a conservative who usually votes Republican.
However, since Trump announced in 2015 he was running for president, he has not been my favorite person nor president.
However, I am worried if Joe Biden gets elected, along with very liberal kamala Harris, that my Second Amendment rights will be curtailed when another liberal justice is named to the Supreme Court. Thus I was going to vote for Trump, figuring he'd get another opportunity to nominate a conservative judge.
However, now with the death of Ginsburg, Trump has the opportunity to name a conservative judge, thus assuring my Second Amendment rights and other rights I hold dear.
If that happens, I'll feel free to vote for Biden knowing my rights are secure, at least for a few years. If it does not, and no conservative judge is seated I'll have to vote for Trump, hoping he'll be president for another four years, thus able to appoint a conservative judge.
It's as simple as that.
At least he's honest in his "me first attitude". But it's a concept I never thought about much, supporting Trump only for the judicial picks. And once he's fulfilled that he is no longer needed.
I'll have to remember to check out the special.
Gotta go pick up some leaves...
Well, the two hour's are over. It was a personality sketch of the two men. Not quite what I was expecting, but then again, I don't actually know what I was expecting, so I can't explain how it was different.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
"But it's a concept I never thought about much…"
Trump is blatantly transactional. It should come as no surprise that a few Trump's voters have noticed this and are willing to respond in kind. (Jerry Falwell, ᴊʀ., just for one instance, is certainly under no illusions about Trump's sincere Christian piety.)
But, your local letter writer/Trump voter is nevertheless in a definite minority among Trump voters.
Moreover, once Trump has named his choice, then Trump's involvement is over; his task is complete. Voting for or against Trump on November 3rd has no direct effect on how the nomination plays out. McConnell can still call a lame-duck session and ram the appointment through with his current Republican majority any time before January 3rd--two whole months to seat the new Justice even if Trump loses and even if the Republicans also lose the Senate. Voting either for or against Trump after he's named his selection is irrelevant to the fortunes of his selection.
That's probably why this guy's argument never occurred to you before--it's stupid--and you're not.
(I suspect your letter writer may already know all this, and was just bullshittin' the local newspaper for the fun of it.)
Rumors are leaking to the press (Politico among them) that the CIA is restricting the reporting of information it has on continued Russian meddling in the 2020 elections. Specifically, they're clamping down on the information they're sending to the White House.
Speculations on why include a guess that they may be "self-censoring" because it gets them in trouble with the President, who does not want such things mentioned. Or, it may be the result of a personal power struggle for status inside the CIA, folks vying to be the next head of one division or another. Another guess is that Trump may have intimidated the whole lot of them to the point that they simply aren't collating the data they do happen to gather on the subject--sorta "don't go there; don't look at that" mentality taking hold at the CIA.
(Another speculation that I will indulge, even if the reporter I linked at the head of this note will not, is the possibility that they suspect the President of being a Russian mole.)
(I suspect your letter writer may already know all this, and was just bullshittin' the local newspaper for the fun of it.)
lol! I was wondering that myself. Or he just doesn't think things through, as I would guess so many Trump supporters don't do.
(Another speculation that I will indulge, even if the reporter I linked at the head of this note will not, is the possibility that they suspect the President of being a Russian mole.)
I suspect there are others who may think that too.
It was a personality sketch of the two men.
Yes, I watched most of it. But I think I kind of fell asleep at the end.
I think they actually did a very good job of getting to why the two men behave as they do. It did make me rethink my theory of early stage dementia for Trump as some of his behavior appears to have been learned from various people.
A very bad mix is Trump.
"I watched most of it. *** I kind of fell asleep at the end."
I watched most of it; but I wandered off towards the end. (Still got it on DVR, but unlikely I'll bother.)
Only one officer has been charged in the shooting of Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Kentucky.
He was charged with shooting wild into a neighbor's apartment. For killing Ms. Taylor in her own home--for shooting un-aimed, at no specific target, through the windows and doors of her apartment--nothing.
Likely to get hot in Louisville tonight.
Two officers shot in Louisville. The injuries are not life threatening. One suspect is in custody.
Protests in multiple cities.
I noticed that Mitt Romney whilst explaining his decision to support whomever Trump finally decides to nominate, said the following:
"'I recognize that we may have a court which has more of a
conservative bent than it's had over the last few decades,' he
said. 'But my liberal friends have over many decades gotten
very used to the idea of having a liberal court. And that's not
written in the stars.'"
Of the last 18 Justices nominated to the Supreme Court, four (4) have been nominated by Democratic Presidents. Two by Bill Clinton; two by Barack Obama. Fourteen of the eighteen have been nominated by Republican Presidents.
Mitt Romney describes this as having a "liberal court".
I think I'll disagree with that description.
However, more to the point…
Romney has just admitted that it's his intention to approve Trump's nominee on the basis of allegiance to the Republicans' conservative political agenda. They've given up even trying to pretend it's about objective legal criteria. Even Mitt Romney won't try to pretend that's true anymore.
It appears that our democracy may hang on the moral character of the Justices who serve on the Supreme Court. That is if enough American's don't vote Trump out of office with a resounding thud. Because Trump is making it clear that he won't go quietly. And it is obvious he is hoping that the Supreme Court will hand him the election win if it is close and Biden comes out on top.
Trump made an appearance at RBG's reviewal and ended getting booed when he left. Probably not something he is used to.
The aftermath of this election will not be pleasant, one way or the other.
"And it is obvious he is hoping that the Supreme Court will hand
him the election win if it is close…"
He clearly believes his odds of getting handed the election will be better if he can get just one more of his picks on The Court before they take up that opportunity.
I was looking at a fact checking article and came across this:
If Joe Biden is declared the winner after all votes are tabulated, could a legal challenge from President Donald Trump hold up the inauguration and stop Biden from taking office?
There’s a very good chance there will be legal challenges over this election. The Constitution, as amended, is very clear over very few things, but one date that’s set in stone is that on January 20, someone will take the oath of office. It’ll be either someone who meets the criteria to be president after the election (Biden or Trump) or the next in line of presidential succession (Nancy Pelosi), who would serve until the election is sorted out.
Depending on who's reading of The Constitution one accepts, it could be someone other than Biden, Trump, or Pelosi. (Not likely, but possible, and considerably more possible if the right-wingers get that last Supreme Trumpkin confirmed--or if Trump seats her as a "recess appointment")
That would properly be "…whose reading…"
It appears that Trump has (or thinks he has) figured out a way to seize $6.6 billion from the Medicare system and divert it into his reëlection campaign. Politico (Even Trump's campaign people don't know yet how he's figuring to pull this one off.)
Republican Congressman, Doug Collins, has come up with an idea of amending the Constitution to keep next year's Democratic majorities from expanding the number of seats beyond the current Supreme Trumpkin 5/4 majority. He wants it set up so that any move to add seats has to be authorized ten years before a President can nominate the extra Justices. FoxNews This will prohibit Biden from ever nominating a tenth or an eleventh Justice. Give the Republicans a chance to win back the Presidency. (I say again they're running on pure fear--no real hope, just fear.)
(Oh, and just for the record, that proposal's goin' nowhere; they're terrified of starting the Constitutional Amendment process--might go sideways on 'em, end up take away their structural advantages--they fear that most of all. I just mentioned it because it's so clearly based on the Republicans' fear of the November elections.)
I found this vidoe of an interview done with Trump supporters in Bemidji rather interesting. I talked with someone the other day who supports Trump. And I ran into the same kind of inability to believe that he may be being lied to. He was so sure of his facts. He does have both Republican and Democratic friends. We did manage to exchange ideas on policy where we actually tended to agree. But when it came to who would best further those ideas he didn't seem to care or realize that Trump may not be that person. He will vote Trump again. *sigh*
I mentioned that I thought that Trump's making fun of the disabled reporter had been disgusting. He didn't seem to know what I was talking about and made some weak comment about YouTube. Well, that was on all of the news casts, except maybe Fox, when it happened.
In that link to the video I just posted one of the Trump supporters said he didn't like the fact that people brushed them aside calling them ignorant. Well if you only want to associate with, or listen to ideas, from people who reinforce your beliefs what does he expect?
"He was so sure of his facts."
Dedicated to their alternate version of reality. As I occasionally note.
[Petes]: "The underlying BLM ideology is that "whiteness" is inextricably and irredeemably bound up with racism and power structures."
[Lynnette]: "But as you said there are Black police officers who are part of that power structure. If they are racially profiling based on crime statistics are they not also part of the problem? BLM is concerned with police violence against Black people. They don't specify color of the police."
Actually, BLM lash out at a lot of different things. They've been involved in shutting down gay pride marches for not being black enough. But they've also opposed black liberation movements for not being gay enough, and for being too focused on "heterosexual cisgender males". They are ideologically opposed to all country borders, to "heteronormativity" and the "heteropatriarchy" (a new one on me, and I thought I'd heard most of the ultra-leftwing neologisms), and the traditional nuclear family which they are committed to dismantling.
Basically they are screaming leftwing loons, which is hardly surprising as the founders identify themselves as "trained Marxists". They buy into the new leftwing lingo of micro-aggressions, of racism being an intrinsic and inseparable aspect of "whiteness", and all the rest of the nonsense that has been coming out of grievance studies, queer studies, and related pseudoscientific studies in the humanities for the past several decades.
As far as I'm concerned they are poisonous to the core and nothing good can come of their ideology, aims, or objectives. That's despite the cloak of justice-seeking, which of course seems reasonable to the masses who have donated millions to them but haven't actually read their material.
On a more cheerful note, I see that Trump has made his nomination of Amy Coney Barrett official. The Biden / Harris / Pelosi et al. reaction has obviously been well-prepared in advance. They've decided they're focusing on the dangers to the affordable care act. Also on the unreasonableness of installing a new justice in the dying days of the presidential term.
Their problem is that nobody except true-believing Dems think that's anything other than a partisan whinge. And, of course, for all the weeping and wailing coming from the left about judicial activism and packing the court with partisan judges, Coney Barrett is an avowed originalist, less prone to "discovering" all those new rights in the constitution that left wing loons have been finding for years.
At least we shouldn't have to endure too many criticisms of her religious convictions, as it might just be a tad awkward for the pro-death Biden and Pelosi to have to acknowledge her as a co-religionist.
"…the founders identify themselves as 'trained Marxists'…"
No, in fact "the founders" do not so identify. A couple of semi-professional agitators had the bright idea to lay claim to the web name of "Black Lives Matter Global Network" and wrap up all the websites they could find (starting in July of 2013), after the slogan became popular in American racial justice protests following the February 2012 death of Trayvon Martin in Florida.
Today's protest participants (American participants anyway) generally have no clue at all about your own very passionate little war against the "anti-fascists" in general or those specific "Marxists" in particular, nor would they give a damn about it if they did know.
I tend to think that any potential candidate for the open position of Justice of the Supreme Court who would now accept Trump's nomination for that position has demonstrated a level of contempt for the important non-political heritage of that institution sufficient to disqualify her from holding the position--ever.
In short--accepting Trump's nomination for Justice, before he gets his "permission" to make that nomination renewed by the American voters show her to be categorically unfit to hold the position she seeks.
How interesting. Previously:
[Lee]: "Biden's position should be that it's simply inconceivable that any self-respecting candidate for the Supreme Court would accept Trump's nomination unless and until Trump has won reëlection in November."
[Petes]: "Yeah, 'cos a Democratic preznit would never attempt to stuff the court with partisan justices."
[Lee]: "Even if that were true, it's irrelevant; ain't got squat to do with what Biden's current political position should be to improve his chances of picking up a few swing voters."
[Petes]: "And there was me thinkin' y'all were putting it forth as an ethical stance. Thanks for confirming y'all are merely engaging in the sordid partisan antics of USian presidential politics."
[Lee]: "You're pretty slow on the uptake there. I think it was obvious to everybody else."
So Lee was adamantly representing this rather stupid view as what Biden ought to do as a matter of political expediency. But now, just a week later:
[Lee]: "In short--accepting Trump's nomination for Justice, before he gets his "permission" to make that nomination renewed by the American voters show her to be categorically unfit to hold the position she seeks."
Turns out it was Lee's rather stupid personal view after all. And the stupidity of it is that the president's powers don't wind down like the ballerina on top of a music box, slowly coming to a halt over time. Last I checked, Trump is the preznit, and the Republicans have a senate majority, and the preznit and the senate between them nominate and appoint US Supreme Court justices. From a Democrat point of view, Ruth Bader Ginsberg may have picked a bad time to shuffle off this mortal coil, but that ain't Trump's problem. All this whinging does is highlight how the Dem's haven't the least interest in non-partisan justices either. They want their own person in there. Well tough, their turn comes whenever next they hold the presidency. That's how it works.
Trouble is, the Trump appointees could easily last another thirty years. And the next most likely to cash in their chips after Ginsberg is Breyer, a liberal Clinton appointee. If Trump gets a further term he might well get another stab at it.
Be a few short months and the danger from Trump will be dealt with.
However, we'll still have a new Supreme Trumpkin on our high court, one who has obviously prioritized her politics and her power over public confidence in the concept of impartial justice under the law.
Give it just a little while post-Trump, and you'll find out that I'm simply being prescient. Barret will be seen as a political/ideological reactionary power--hostile to democratic principals. She's bear an asterisk next to name as one of the post-Republican "Justices" who brought the concept of equal justice under the law into widespread disrepute.
If we're lucky, we'll recover from this, but, even so, she'll be seen by history as a camp follower of Justice Roger Taney (look up "Dred Scott").
(Took out the first version for too many extra spaces at the end.)
It is unfortunate. They're supposed to be dedicated to justice (hence the name), not power, but it is what it is, as Trump tells us.
So now we'll have to figure out how to deal going forward with the corruption of our Republic that she represents. (And, pretty soon, Trump won't be in the way, and folks will begin to notice.)
"Lee was adamantly representing this…as what Biden
ought to do…turns out it was Lee's…personal view…"
Yes, in what is apparently a surprise to the fat Irishman, turns out that I publicly recommended that Biden ought to do what I thought was the right thing to do. Whoda thunk it?
(Although, I do think that the usage of the adverb "adamantly" in that context is just more of customary Petes' histrionics. Probably intended to divert attention from his innate fanaticism against American blacks' recent protests for equality and justice--but then again, there's that "justice" thing again--not exactly one of his concerns it would seem, but it should be of concern to us.)
Post Script:
When soundly thrashed, Petes tends to discover and revel in typos and spelling mistakes.
There are some above. I'll give him his jollies on that, if he chooses to jolly there, rather than bother.
Knock yourself out, Petes. Floor's yours for now.
Second Post Script:
"…the Dem's haven't the least interest in non-partisan justices either."
After several years as a career federal prosecutor and a decade as a federal court judge, Merrick Garland was widely seen as a legal "moderate" and a non-partisan judge by both Democrats and Republicans. (That was a good part of the reason Mitch McConnell was so adamantly opposed to letting him to even have a public hearing.)
I might point out that Coney-Barret is an on and off again member of the Federalist Society. That makes six of them on the high court I think, counting the Chief Justice. (I remembered to mention it overnight.)
Sounds like a good thing.
I imagine it would sound good to you.
We'll have to deal with that problem eventually. But, first things first. If we don't get Trump out of the office of the Presidency in this coming election then having another autocrat as a member of the Supreme Trumpkins will almost certainly be a matter of minor importance.
And, if we can get rid of him, we'll probably get the opportunity to deal appropriately with her later.
[Lee]: "Today's protest participants (American participants anyway) generally have no clue at all about your own very passionate little war against the "anti-fascists" in general or those specific "Marxists" in particular, nor would they give a damn about it if they did know."
That may be generally true but it doesn't mean the protestors are not influenced and motivated by certain intellectual and political currents. Most people of any view don't fully understand the intellectual underpinnings of that view, because most people aren't "intellectuals". Here's a relevant video that y'all prolly won't watch in spite of the interviewee being a so-called progressive.
"…but it doesn't mean the protestors are not influenced and
motivated by certain intellectual and political currents…"
It doesn't have to mean that, because what you're trying to imply is otherwise not true. The fact is that they don't give a damn about your own little war because they don't give a damn about your own little war nor are they much interested in or even aware of your imagined "intellectual and political currents" supposedly washing over them.
Those things come up almost exclusively on FoxNews and Brietbart and whatever other such similar media attracts the attention of fat Irishmen (probably YouTube rings are prominently involved here).
"Here's a relevant video that y'all prolly won't watch…"
Sounds like a good idea (although I doubt the relevance of the video--your track record on getting relevant hasn't been too good lately).
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/05/98-years-of-mail-fraud/559661/
I think what's eventually gonna havta happen is that the states that make the money and pay the taxes (the blue states) are gonna havta cut off the welfare payments to the states that perennially live on rebates from the federal government (the red states).
Then they offer to restart the welfare payments and other subsidies if the red states give up the extra electors (assigned two per state no matter what the population) and let the Presidential election be decided by democratic vote--as in, they distribute the electors among the states on the basis of population, without the boost of two additional electors for every state, regardless of its population.
That's probably the only way to get enough states to vote through a Constitutional Amendment to make the needed change. But, in the end, the red states need the money; they'll take the money.
But this is probably years down the line.
As far as I'm concerned they are poisonous to the core and nothing good can come of their ideology, aims, or objectives. That's despite the cloak of justice-seeking, which of course seems reasonable to the masses who have donated millions to them but haven't actually read their material.
You do realize that this description also applies to the groups who espouse extreme right wing views? At their core is a belief of white supremacy that bodes only ill for real justice for all.
The United States is a melting pot with every idea under the sun roaming around. The trick is to get all of these people to live together under one government. To do that everyone must compromise something or we will only have rule by a minority put in place by force. Which is why there is a concern about the Supreme Court. In a perfect world those who sit on the Court's bench would be above any personal ideology. But the world is not perfect.
Our government was set up with three branches to balance each other. We have seen the Legislative Branch shirking their responsibility in balancing the Executive Branch. It is even more important for the Judicial Branch to do theirs.
The video is an hour long and I need to do some yard work so no time now.
Polling suggests that a majority of Americans believe that the filling of what was Ruth Ginzberg's seat on the Supreme Court should wait for winner of the November election. 538 has it running 13% towards the "wait" option--52% to 39%. Importantly, independents are aligning with the Democrats on this one, thinking Trump ought to wait until he's reëlected, if he's going to be reëlected.
Bad news there for Republican Senate candidates. (Trump's already committed to a "base only" strategy, so it really doesn't make much difference for him.)
By the way, that ↑↑ is an averaging of all available polling on the subject, which means it's probably a fairly accurate read on the mood of the nation.
Ballistics reports from the shooting of Breonna Taylor say that the prosecutor is lying about her boyfriend supposedly shooting a police officer during their "no knock" raid. Which is supposedly what sparked the cops into firing blindly into the apartment.
The ballistics' report has been leaked, and it says they cannot make a determination about whose gun fired that shot, might have been "friendly fire" from another cop that hit the shot cop. The prosecutor said "friendly fire" had been ruled out by the ballistics' check. The ballistics' report says that's not true. USAToday
I just heard on the news that The New York Times has a story coming out regarding Trump's tax returns. They are saying he only paid $750.00 in taxes in 2016 and again in his first year in office. He paid zero taxes in the last 10 out of 15 years due to the amount of losses from his businesses.
If this is true it would explain why he has fought tooth and nail to keep his tax returns out of the public spotlight. It would make clear he is totally phony. He has said it is fake news. His base will believe him, but it may sink in with others.
"His base will believe him…"
His base will pretend to believe him because that's easier than defending it.
[Lee]: "The fact is that they don't give a damn about your own little war because they don't give a damn about your own little war nor are they much interested in or even aware of your imagined "intellectual and political currents" supposedly washing over them."
I've noticed y'all never feel you have to provide any actual evidence for yer lofty declarations. If it doesn't suit yer extreme political biases it ain't true. Fact of the matter is it's an organisation with dozens of chapters and tens of millions of dollars in resources, so yore contention that nobody on the street is even aware of it is about as asinine as one would expect. Dozens of interviews with people on the street are evidence that those intellectual currents do indeed form many of the opinions.
"I've noticed y'all never feel you have to provide any actual evidence…"
That's because you're not worth the effort. (Not to mention that you admitted it was true before you remembered to demand evidence.)
And, it's not like the truth has any actual value for you. That's become clear enough.
[Lynnette]: "You do realize that this description also applies to the groups who espouse extreme right wing views?"
I most certainly do, but I don't know what that has to do with anything. The answer to extreme views is not to try to counterbalance them with equally odious extreme views from the other side. Moreover, I don't think it is a balance. Actual neo-Nazis and white supremacists really are a tiny minority and members of those organisations are (rightly) ostracised. The destructive views of BLM are mainstream, and lauded in the media. There is no equivalence, and the latter is more dangerous by virtue of being unchallenged.
P.S. If you do get a chance, the video is worth watching even in part.
[Lee]: "That's because you're not worth the effort."
Fine by me. Long as ya don't expect to be taken seriously or, indeed taken for anything but a whiney zealot.
"Moreover, … etc."
See, just what I meant when I said the truth has no value for you.
You're way too invested in defending the fascists from the "antifa" people.
I remember your faked up antifa photos (the ones that you faked yourself, because you couldn't find faked ones on the web already) from the Charlottesville fascists riots. And then there's the NPAC study that was withdrawn in its entirety for fairly obvious and fairly comprehensive flaws that you concealed.
The very idea that anybody would resist fascists seems to just terrify you, and all pretense at honesty goes right out the window.
Lee: "the ones that you faked yourself, because you couldn't find faked ones on the web already ... comprehensive flaws that you concealed"
Seems I need to correct myself. You were a whiney zealot. Now you're just an out and out fantasist.
I shared where you got them (west coast--year before Charlottesville) and (I think) even where you stashed them on the net so's you could link with them to this blog, shared that info with others behind your back, at the time.
Carry on.
Petes seems to not be carrying on…
Well, meantime I am reminded that the Catholic Church of the early 1930s was one of the original allies and supporters of Germany's Nazi regime. As I recall it, Hitler's Nazi Party took power in 1933 and the Vatican was one of the first to seek out a formal, written alliance with the new Nazi regime.
(Not that I'm accusing Petes of being a Nazi--definitely not doing that; don't believe it for an instant myself; I would argue strenuously against it if the subject ever came up; his economic notions seem to preclude defining him as a fascist, net alone a Nazi--so, "no"; not a Nazi, but "fascist friendly" one might say--his notions of social control seem quite compatible. And that's consistent with his Church's recent history as well.)
[Petes] The destructive views of BLM are mainstream, and lauded in the media.
That really depends on which views you refer to. First of all here is a fact check on BLM's history. Yes, earlier activists claim to be Marxists. But that is not the views of many of those who support the core principal of racial equality. As the link points out, movements evolve. In this case, what began as one thing may very well morph into something else entirely. And in doing so bring about real change for the better in race relations.
I most certainly do, but I don't know what that has to do with anything.
Both exist in this country and both need to be addressed. It is the clashes between the far right and left we are starting to see which are causing violence in our streets.
Actual neo-Nazis and white supremacists really are a tiny minority and members of those organisations are (rightly) ostracised.
White supremacists and odd conspiracy groups such as QAnon are attempting their run at becoming mainstream, with the winks and nods from our current occupant of the White House. This is a real danger and should not be used in pursuit of a person's personal agenda.
"First of all here is a fact check on BLM's history."
Correcting your accounting… Only some of the "earlier activists claim to be Marxists". And the supposed, self-proclaimed "founders" were denied copywrite or trademark protection because the phrase had "already entered the public domain" by the time they got around to thinking of trying to snag the name for themselves. They did manage to buy up some (most) of the website names; they were quick enough for that, but that was just a bit of capitalist enterprise and thinking ahead. (If they'd have been quicker off the mark on it, they'd have probably been able to get trademark protection as well.)
For what it's worth, the phrase "All Lives Matter" did achieve trademark status in 2016, but the trademark was subsequently abandoned, presumably because it wasn't lucrative enough to keep up the trademark fights for the royalties they wanted to claim. (link)
[Lee]: "even where you stashed them on the net so's you could link with them to this blog"
Forget "fantasist". Full-on paranoid delusional is more apt at this point.
Well, of course I can't prove that you are the one who stashed them not, not beyond all possible doubt that is, but I did find the timestamp from where you'd plopped them down there, deposited them in that webstash just minutes before you then copied that link and posted it to this blog. Close enough for proof beyond any reasonable doubt I'd reckon it.
And, of course, there's the fact that the pictures were from demonstrations on the west coast the prior year. Contrary to your assertions otherwise.
And you got no other source that you can claim deceived you into believing they might be from Charlottesville--ain't nowhere else they were claimed to be from Charlottesville; you got no source--that claim originated with you, first time, only time.
I'm going with that as sufficient proof.
[Lynnette]: "Yes, earlier activists claim to be Marxists. But that is not the views of many of those who support the core principal of racial equality."
Hang on a mo'. Everyone (with the exception of a few fringe lunatics) supports the core principal of racial equality. BLM don't believe that, of course. Their Marxist roots lead them to see all racial interaction as a power struggle. That's part of what makes them so toxic. They will set race relations back by generations.
[Lynnette]: "Both exist in this country and both need to be addressed. It is the clashes between the far right and left we are starting to see which are causing violence in our streets."
Uh, no. There was plenty of looting and burning with only leftists on the streets.
[Lynnette]: "White supremacists and odd conspiracy groups such as QAnon are attempting their run at becoming mainstream, with the winks and nods from our current occupant of the White House."
There are odd groups of all sorts springing up -- flat earthers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, thunderbolts project, Covid hoaxers, anti-vaxxers, climate catastrophists, anti-science fads of every conceivable nature. All of them vie for mindshare. The claim that any one of the is a serious threat would need some evidence. I think there is considerable evidence that BLM is a serious threat, as seen at many hundreds of protests. What's your evidence about those other groups?
"Uh, no. There was plenty of looting and burning with
only leftists on the streets."
You were saying something about "proof" earlier?
(Sorry Lynnette, couldn't let that one go after he'd tried that line earlier. He's all yours now; I'll stay out of the way going forward.)
{lee]: "Well, of course I can't prove that you are the one who stashed them not, not beyond all possible doubt that is, but I did find the timestamp from where you'd plopped them down there"
I take it you're serious -- or at least as serious as yer warped mind allows. Uh, if I remember right, the "stash" was on imgur.com (leastways, that's the site I use almost universally for linking images on blogs etc.) The clue (for the non-clueless) is in the name. It's an image hosting, editing and sharing site. I'm certain that the original site I linked it from represented it as Antifa at Charlottesville. Sorry, can't be less vague than that 'cos I haven't given it a single moment's thought since. You, on the other hand, obviously obsess about it a lot. And now, speaking of people who aren't worth it, ya got way above my word quota allotted to puttin' y'all in yer place for now. So I must leave ya to yer paranoid delusions.
[Lee]: "He's all yours now; I'll stay out of the way going forward."
Can never quite figure out if ya think y'all's on some kind of tag team, or you just consider Lynnette wholly incompetent to carry on her own conversations. Either it's indicative of a pretty ugly mindset.
"that's the site I use almost universally for linking
images on blogs etc."
"Laundering" I think that's called. So, we now have your admission that you "laundered" the image, concealing its original source.
But, you can't remember that original source, even though I called you out at the time for having faked the photo, and you couldn't identify an original source back then either (at least, not one that didn't also show it to be a west coast photo and not from Charlottesville at all).
Yeah, I'm going with the claim that I got all the evidence I need to establish that beyond all reasonable doubt.
And, no, I haven't thought it much at all, but I do have a fairly decent memory. And catchin' you fakin' an image did stick with me.
I still haven't forgotten that. (Of course, neither have you, but you're hopin' to bluff your way out of it this time with the claim to have "forgotten". Bullshit defense, if you'd had a source you'd have used it when I accused you the first time.)
"Can never quite figure out if…"
Nowhere close with either one. You're just a contemptible excuse for a self-proclaimed "intellectual" (Petes @ Sun Sep 27, 08:35 am ↑↑). Your fully saturated full-of-yourself pomposity irritates me occasionally. (Maybe more than occasionally.)
(It might be different if you were actually smart enough to justify being so full of yourself. But…)
[Lee]: Yeah, I'm going with the claim that I got all the evidence I need to establish that beyond all reasonable doubt."
You and reasonableness don't really fit together in the same sentence.
[Lee]: "You're just a contemptible excuse for a self-proclaimed "intellectual". Your fully saturated full-of-yourself pomposity irritates me occasionally. (Maybe more than occasionally.)
You've been throwin' a temper tantrum since I showed up back here, so I'd say it's a lot more than occasionally. And a lot more than irritation too ... unless irritations regularly cause ya to lose coherence and any semblance of rationality. I presume that's why y'all stoop to playin' a dumbass instead of actual argumentation.
Anyway, more than happy to leave y'all in peace in yore leftwing echo chamber. Will do that eventually in any case.
Gonna leave Lynnette with no opportunity to reply are ya?
Post a Comment